Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07252002 Min Ag ....... . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP AGENDA City Council Chambers, 7:00 pm July 25, 2002 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Acceptance of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - May 9, 2002 V. General Public Comment (limited to 3 minutes per person) VI. Unfinished Business VII. New Business A. 2004 Comprehensive Plan Update - Workplan Staff Introduction - Presentation by Eric Toews, Cascadia Planning - Public Comment - Planning Commission Discussion B. Revisions to Annual Update Cycle (pTMC 20.04) Staff Presentation - Public Comment - Planning Commission Discussion VIII. Upcoming Meetings VIII. Communications IX. Adjournment · CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 25, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cindy Thayer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Other members answering roll were Bernie Arthur, Michael Hyland, Alice King and Jim Irvin. Frank Benskin. Lyn Hersey Richard Berg and Nancy Dorgan were excused. Also present were BCD staff members Jeff Randall and Judy Surber. Michelle Sandoval represented City Council, and Freda Fenn was also in attendance. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Mr. Hyland made a motion to accept the agenda; Mr. Irvin seconded the motion. All were in favor. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Benskin made the motion to approve the minutes of May 9, 2002 as written. Mr. Irvin seconded the motion. All were in favor. V. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT -- There was no public comment. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - There was no unfinished business. · VII. NEW BUSINESS 2004 ComDrehensive f!m! ~ = Work,plan Ms Surber introduced Mr. Eric Toews, Cascadia Planning, who has been hired by the BCD to assist in the Comprehensive Plan Update. Mr. Toews noted the State Legislature had made amendments to the update cycle requirements in order to include such technical issues as best available science. His "2004 PLAN UPDATE BASICS: What Must Be Updated, and Why?" was distributed, and he stated that by December 1, 2004 and each subsequent 7 years the Plan must be reviewed, and, if needed, revisions made to the Plan and Code to comply with the GMA. The purpose of the review is: 1) to account for changes in information and circumstances; 2) to make sure the city routinely updates its Plan to conform to changes in the GMA; 3) to better integrate land use and other environmental laws. Mr. Toews then reviewed the level of analysis required by the 2004 update citing development of significant new information including: 1) City population forecast for 2004 - 2024 (to accommodate such things as capital facilities; land use and housing) 2) Updated "baseline" conditions for land use, housing, transportation and capital facilities 3) Changes to the 20-year capital facilities plan (CFP) and 6-year capital improvement plan (CIP) that are based on the updated population numbers 4) Amendments to the critical areas sections ofPTMC to reflect the use of "best available science." (This year's docket contains such updated policy language.) He mentioned coordination and collaborative effort with Jefferson County. He pointed out that the processes would give opportunity to determine the status of things called for in the Plan like widely held community values. Mr. Toews' "Suggested Work Plan Outline" listed eight phases and timeframes for the 2004 Plan update & · SMP update phases. Planning Commission Minutes / July 25, 2002 / Page 1 · Phase I -- requires work with the County Phase II -- includes "Indicator Data," community attitudes survey, format for updated Plan Phase III -- benchmarks for Phase II direction Phase IV -- (start of public process) basic drafting of Plan and Code language Mr. Randall asked for Commission reactions regarding the survey proposed by Mr, Toews. Mr. Irvin applauded the beginning of the plan and said he is all for it. He pled for the phase in the integrated timeline with the County and all players, but thought the random survey raised a red flag and requires some thought. There was discussion regarding the survey and the follow up needed so as not to skew the results. Mr. Irvin asked regarding advisory groups. Mr. Toews responded that hopefully it would be only one group, and that the number of meetings would be discretional, dependent on the requirements of Phase III. Mr. Randall discussed costs involved with the proposed updates and indicated that when the GMA was passed, there was a pretty good level of support from the State Legislature. He said now there is almost an unfunded mandate, and he does not expect to see much help from the State. He presented a suggested budget. Mr. Toews pointed out alternatives, that there could be a fairly limited citizen advisory review required, and indicated they could get away with significantly less than proposed. He noted the work required by Public Works in the new transportation plan and said that Public Works represents the low end of the spectrum. Ms. Swber pointed out they also need to look at development regulations. Mr. Toews spoke of jurisdictions waiting to follow others in the "best available science" process. Mr. Arthur asked who tells us this is wrong. Messrs. Toews and Randall responded that we would have to pass something to say what we have is still valid. · Mr. Toews explained that the first three phases are the heart and soul of the process and would be relatively inexpensive compared to the rest. Mr. Irvin suggested a workshop with City Council to determine what is needed, that they need dialog with them. There was no consensus.. Revisions to Annual ~ ~ œIMÇ 20.04) Mr. Randall raised the question of the Comp Plan cycle for year 2003. He said this year is a normal year. He raised questions regarding: 1) Things required in the yearly assessment, like community attitudes, etc. and that there is not much that happens on a yearly basis to assess; 2) Problems for Staff and Council and conflicts with the end of the update cycle coinciding with the City's annual budget process; 3) There is nothing in our Comp Plan that relates to a 7-year amendment cycle. Formal and suggested amendments are considered annually; 4) With an annual review, implementation may not be occurring as needed. Mr. Randall distributed a draft table proposing an amendment cycle. This year would be as is; updates would occur in 2004 and thereafter in 7-year intervals (i.e. 2011,2018). Formal amendments would be considered every year, and suggested amendments coincide with the 7- year cycle. He spoke of changes to year 3 of the 7-year cycle and suggested amending this year to have the update in 2004 and decide when to accept amendments. Mr. Randall called for questions from the Commission. Planning Commission Ouestions and Comments: Ms. Thayer liked the ideas, stating that 3 years gives them enough time to also work on implementation. Mr. Arthur suggested updating the Plan in response to community need regarding suggested and formal amendments. He said those things are what the Planning Commission does. He asked regarding implementation. Mr. Randall responded that it takes time for special implementation, with ongoing BCD work, e.g. permits, it does not allow for implementation of other things. Ms. Thayer pointed out the implementation process in the cycle was a recommendation from the Council. · Planning Commission Minutes / July 25, 2002 / Page 2 · · · Ms. King likes the plan. that it helps to do what is important. After 2 years they might recognize and docket things needing change. Mr. Randall thought if they did formal amendments every year, there would be other ways to accommodate emergencies. Mr. Hyland also liked this proposal and asked Mr. Randall if he liked it. Mr. Randall replied he also liked it, that it was suggested by the Planning Commission and also saves money. Ms. Swber expressed frustration at State mandated requirements and inadequate information available. Mr. Toews spoke of the UGA amendment locally through the CWPP. Mr. Arthur proposed it could be determined they had previously stated they would include the best available science, and that they are doing that. VIII.. UPCOMING MEETINGS August 29, 2002 -- Continuation of 2002 Comp Plan process (SEPA closures -- July 29,2002) IX. COMMUNICATIONS Various related Planning Commission journals Unsigned letter in packet regarding San Juan Commons -- (Mr. Randall stated it is being resolved as a private issue.) Mr. Irvin asked regarding GMA copies previously requested by Commissioners. Ms. Swber suggested since it involved printing excessive amounts of paper (in excess of 2,000 pages each) that Commissioners use the GMA website. X. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Irvin and seconded by Mr. Hyland. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Ci~hau~/~ ~~ Planning Commission Minutes / July 25, 2002 / Page 3